Julius Blum GmbH v. Arturo Salice S.p.A., UPC Local Division Munich, 3 August 2026, Case nos. UPC_CFI_675/2025 and UPC_CFI_1340/2025
A procedural order under R. 105.5 RoP following the interim conference, mainly useful as an illustration of how the Munich Local Division steers a case into the oral hearing, and notable for a pointer on the standard to be applied to inventive step.
The action concerns EP 3 392 438, relating to a furniture hinge, in Austria, Germany, Italy and Slovenia. The defendant has counterclaimed for revocation and the patent is defended with seven auxiliary requests. The hearing is fixed for October.
On value, the judge-rapporteur indicated that he would follow the defendant’s uncontested figure for the action and apply the 1.5 rule to the counterclaim, as departing from that rule would have required further argument. Settlement talks were considered unpromising given that the claimant’s interest lies in enforcing its exclusive right as a means of market delimitation, but the court’s suggestion of a partial settlement on costs was taken up. The parties agreed a lump sum in recoverable representation costs for the winner, to be apportioned in the event of a mixed costs decision. On late submissions the judge-rapporteur announced an all-or-nothing approach, i.e. either all late material is disregarded or all material currently in the Case Management System is admitted, with no differentiation, and the parties agreed on admission of everything.
On substance, the judge-rapporteur gave a preliminary view on the construction of the contested features, noting that a construction should, if possible, cover all embodiments and be novel and inventive over the prior art acknowledged in the description. On validity he indicated that the granted wording may go beyond the original disclosure, and that only one of the auxiliary requests would effectively cure this, raising the question whether the claimant will elevate that request to its main request. Notably, he observed that the defendant had so far argued obviousness along the problem-solution approach of the European Patent Office, whereas the Court of Appeal applies a different, holistic approach, and directed the defendant to identify the attack it considers most promising and to argue it holistically at the hearing.
Further briefs were allowed with two-week deadlines and limited to ten pages each. Presentations may contain nothing that has not been filed in the Case Management System and are to be sent, with the names and functions of the attendees, a week before the hearing. No expert or witness hearing is presently required (the alleged prior use being undisputed), a short film illustrating the defendant’s claim construction may be shown, and the claimant was invited to produce photographs or drawings of the attacked hinges mapped to the claim features. On the defendant’s request for simultaneous interpretation from German into Italian, the judge-rapporteur pointed to the restrictive case law and to the possibility of instructing interpreters at the party’s own cost.
A copy of the Order can be read here.
